The Gordon Brown 20% Tax Con.

cosyc

Nothing to do with tax but read the other day they are also re aligning the national insurance upper level in line with the 40 % bracket (Upper accural point i think it was called) so sounds like an extra tax for those earning between £35 to 40 K.

cosyc

Just looked it up - http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/legislation/nics-bill.htm it starts april 2009 so another back door tax.

Mrs_pbradley936

I put this on another thread which was about benefits but it is just as valid for anyone on less than about £18K a year.

Even poorer people not claiming benefits are will be worse off. The following quote is taken from here, page 5: http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2008/08chap14.pdf

In 2008–09, those earning between £5,435 per annum and approximately £18,500 lose from the reforms to income tax and National Insurance, whilst those earning more than £18,500 all gain, although those earning more than about £39,000 are never better off by more than about £1 per week or £52 per year.

If anyone is interested it explains how those on benefits will be taxed at upwards of 80% because .... well just read it for the explanation!

CarolynH

cosyc wrote: »

Nothing to do with tax but read the other day they are also re aligning the national insurance upper level in line with the 40 % bracket (Upper accural point i think it was called) so sounds like an extra tax for those earning between £35 to 40 K.

Upper Earnings Limit. (UEL).

Jennifer_Jane

Well, it's hitting people (I think) below £18000 a year and retirees, not 'early' retirees but normal retirees.

It's time for Baby Boomers to get together and become a force to be reckoned with. I also noticed this tax change in March last year. I'm shocked that a Labour Govt should be so frivolous about hitting the poorer sections of the community - impossible Council Tax; Utilities; TV licences, and so on.

I reckon a more sensible (but less lucrative) and fairer system would be to have a sliding scale of allowance, it's a huge leap from £5435 to £9030 at 65.

cassy

it all stinks no mater if over 60 or below, me and hubby both on low incomes household bills keep going up and not quite low enough for benefits but still nothing left at the end of the month

EdInvestor

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Well, it's hitting people (I think) below £18000 a year and retirees, not 'early' retirees but normal retirees.

Not reirees over 65 as the age allkowance has been increased substantially to compensate, so these people will be better off..

Jennifer_Jane

EdInvestor wrote: »

Not reirees over 65 as the age allkowance has been increased substantially to compensate, so these people will be better off..

I did say in my post about the age allowance, and how it changed at 65, but my point was that it's people who are 'retiring', not people retiring early.

To me the term 'early retiree' implies that people are not retiring at the normal age (currently 60 for women).

I am extremely cross about Gordon Brown and his little darling... he's making life harder for a great number of people on low incomes. There's no way of defending this, and I was surprised that anyone would post to dismiss it as only applying to early retirees.

Jen
x

Jennifer_Jane

Margaretclare - I had not forgotten that the situation is changing with BSP moving women on to the same footing as men. I am fully aware of what's happening, thanks (I have my FPC and used to be a financial advisor, albeit in a different country). But this is not relevant to the OP's posting of a petition to try to bring back the 10% tax band.

And I, at 61, am one of those, who like you, HAS to work on past retirement age. You were fortunate that you could work and were happy to. The removal of the 10% will make a small but significant difference in my eventual pension income. I have signed the petition.

Jennifer_Jane

margaretclare wrote: »

Personally I think it is well outdated for women to retire at 60. Me, I couldn't have afforded to retire at 60 - I was still struggling to keep a roof over my head. I worked until I was 67. I couldn't have imagined retiring any earlier.

Apologies, misunderstood this paragraph.